Enlightened Despots were a subset of absolute monarchs that made legal, social, and educational reforms in accordance with Enlightenment principles. All Enlightened Despots were absolute monarchs, but there were a number of European absolute monarchs that were not Enlightened Despots.
YES. Louis XIV is usually held up as the quintessential example of an absolute monarchy. He weakened the power of the nobility, strengthened his direct power over locals, ran every aspect of the Kingdom of France, directed and controlled all religious activity in France, and finally, Louis XIV saw no distinction between his person and the Kingdom of France as a whole.
Yes, but only to an extent. The reason for this is because he was put into power at a young age, so he didn't learn how to maintain a kingdom until late in his rule. What made him bad was his extreme love for food, and tinkering which made him completely unaware of what had been going on outside of his palace. This is proved during the storming of the Bastille; while people were raiding the symbol of opposition he had no account of what happened on that day. So overall was he a bad monarch? Not necessarily, it was the poor timing that got to him.
he was absolute because he was able to remove the nobilty from power, therefore he was alone in the throne. Also he established and raised a military that was able to accomplish some of his desires.
god gave them the right to rule
Absolutism is a political system and theory of government in which the king (or queen) is all-powerful and possesses a monopoly on the use of force and the administration of justice.
1. The King (or Queen) has an orderly and efficient bureaucracy where all power and directives flow downward from the monarch.
2. The King (or Queen) has a large standing army with which to enforce his (or her) will.
3. The power of any other groups or traditional institutions is suppressed, especially the power of the nobility as a class.
4. Absolute government is costly and usually requires heavy taxation for support.
5. Absolute government was justified by the theory of "divine right" monarchy in which the King (or Queen) was said to be God's anointed on the earth.
6. Absolute government depends heavily for its success on strong personality traits in the King (or Queen) as a personal symbol of the state/country.
Divine Right is what gives legitimacy to the absolute monarch. Divine Right argues that the specific king who governs was chosen by the local religion's divinities to rule, which nullifies much of the opposition to his power. Vested with the power granted by divine right, an absolute monarch can then go about making all of the political decisions in the country.
Enlightened despots applied Enlightenment ideas to the government
Parliamentary monarchy is a monarchy where the leader is only used as a figurehead. (only there for show, for looks, etc. while the parliament deals with all the work.
Absolute monarch is where the leader is in complete control of EVERYTHING. He isn't just there for looks, he's there because he has all power and makes all decisions.
The second paragraph is correct (about the Absolute Monarchy), but the first is not quite right - a parliamentary monarchy (usually referred to as a constitutional monarchy) does NOT have to have an impotent monarch. In a parliamentary monarchy, the monarch remains the Head of State, and may also retain a variable amount of Executive Branch power. Certain parliamentary monarchs have virtually no real Executive power, while others have a significant amount, including cases where the monarch is dominant over Parliament.
For example, compare the governments of Great Britain, Jordan, and Monaco. All are nominally constitutional (parliamentary) monarchies, but the amount of power retained by the monarch varies widely.
The best example of an absolute monarch would be Louis XIV.
Louis XIV of France...very powerful, spent a lot, controlled many aspects of French life
Thomas Hobbes is most famous for advocating that the absolute ruler is required for stable government. See his seminal work Leviathan.
decreased power of nobles and made a strong central government
because if one person has control over everything it will start to get crazy.
Constitutionalism sets checks and balances on Power, limits the exercise of executive powers, Guarantees the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens, and prohibits any Legislation not consistent with Constitutional Rights.
Absolutism sets no limits on the exercise of Authoritarian Power, and provides no Constitutional Guarantees of Rights and Freedoms.
you did not give me what I need the answer to
NovaNet: executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
"The answer is clear to me."
Despots are not enlightened or they wouldn't be despots. A despot is someone who wants to enslave people.
only on Tuesdays, if it was a Friday he was a Catholic Machine-gunner with Thomas Cromwell being a Sniper assist. on this Tuesday he would walk around asking people if they wanted him to be on the throne. if they said no, he would kill them. if they said yes, he would torture them until they said no.
Henry VIII was a bit like the Spanish inquisition and NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
hey chicken fillet
"are u a vegi"
"no im lesbian"
People began to want to overthrow their leaders due to weak leadership and deep debt.